From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263943AbUEXSnw (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 14:43:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264432AbUEXSnv (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 14:43:51 -0400 Received: from mail1.bluewin.ch ([195.186.1.74]:31406 "EHLO mail1.bluewin.ch") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263943AbUEXSnu (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 14:43:50 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 19:28:13 +0200 From: Roger Luethi To: Paul Rolland Cc: "'Phy Prabab'" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Help understanding slow down Message-ID: <20040524172813.GB4434@k3.hellgate.ch> Mail-Followup-To: Paul Rolland , 'Phy Prabab' , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20040524005751.62303.qmail@web90006.mail.scd.yahoo.com> <200405240633.i4O6Xu621252@tag.witbe.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200405240633.i4O6Xu621252@tag.witbe.net> X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.25 on i686 X-GPG-Fingerprint: 92 F4 DC 20 57 46 7B 95 24 4E 9E E7 5A 54 DC 1B X-GPG: 1024/80E744BD wwwkeys.ch.pgp.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 24 May 2004 08:33:49 +0200, Paul Rolland wrote: > Hello, > > > 2.6.7-p1: > > 24.86user 51.77system 2:58.87elapsed 42%CPU > > (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k > > 0inputs+0outputs (13major+7591686minor)pagefaults > > 0swaps > > > > 2.4.21: > > 28.68user 34.98system 1:12.34elapsed 87%CPU > > (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k > > 0inputs+0outputs (5691267major+1130523minor)pagefaults > > 0swaps > > > > > > Both runs on the same machine with the same process > > (making headers). > > > > Could someone give me some pointers/directions on > > where to look. > > Any reason why there is such a difference in the pagefaults > numbers between 2.4.x and 2.6.x ???? > Could it explain a part of the time differences ? Probably no. Last time I checked, the major fault field for rusage contained bogus data (included minor faults as well). Looks like that got fixed in 2.6. Roger